Address  of  the  Retiring  President,  Charles  S.  " 


cle  by  Carl  Snyder  in  a  recent  number  of  the  N ort  k;  •Vsisr’&a!^ 

•  »  it*  •  *  •  •  • 


of  that  paper,  as  well  as  the  final  conclusion  from  the  great 
flood  of  denial,  explanation  and  further  criticism  which  the 
original  article  has  called  forth  in  American  and  European 


periodicals.  A  professional  critic  can  always  be  distinguished 


by  the  simple  open-or-shut  test  which  he  applies  to  any  propo¬ 
sition  which  comes  under  his  critical  eye.  There  is  to  him 
no  mean  ground,  no  qualifying  circumstance.  His  finely  bal¬ 
anced  judgment  is  like  the  litmus  paper  of  the  chemist;  if  it 
be  applied  to  one  proposition  and  turn  red,  that  means  one  con¬ 
clusion  ;  if  it  turn  blue,  that  means  the  opposite  conclusion.  In 
the  rainbow  of  the  true  critic  there  are  no  colors  but  red  and 
blue.  So  in  the  paper  referred  to,  we  need  not  be  surprised 
if  we  fail  to  find  a  careful  analysis  of  the  subject  under  dis¬ 
cussion.  A  blue  or  red  test  is  more  to  Mr.  Snyder’s  liking. 
He  adopts,  therefore,  the  simple  device  of  establishing  his 
proposition  by  a  series  of  comparisons  between  American  and 
Continental  achievement  in  selected  lines  of  research,  with  no 
attempt  at  explanation,  or  discussion  of  causes  or  present  ten¬ 
dencies.  Our  attention  is  first  directed  to  Pasteur’s  memora¬ 
ble  discovery  of  forty  years  ago,  that  the  process  of  fermenta¬ 
tion  is  due  to  the  action  of  micro-organisms.  The  culmina¬ 
tion  of  Pasteur’s  researches  in  the  germ  theory  of  disease,  and 
the  great  army  of  workers  in  European,  states  that  took  up 
and  extended  Pasteur’s  work  is  contrasted  with  the  claim  that 
in  all  the  brilliant  list  c  ?s  and  applications,  not  one 


o 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 


American  name  is  to  be  found.  There  is  not  only  no  Lord 
Lister,  no  Behring,  no  Koch,  among  the  Americans,  but  no 
name  of  even  secondary  importance. 

Mr.  Snyder’s  second  arraignment  of  American  science  has 
the  physicists  as  the  culprits.  The  theoretical  works  of  Clerk 
Maxwell  and  the  experimental  work  of  Hertz  on  electrical 
waves,  called  out  an  army  of  investigators  abroad,  including 
.  .  .such  as  Branly  of  Paris,  Riglii  of  Italy,  Slaby,  Count 

V  .ttnll:  "Braun  of  Germany,  Preece  and  Lodge  of  Great 

Britain,  .bid.  yoj  .a  single  American. 

♦  «r\*  *  *'.*.**  # 

fJai?  cfitR  Jnfit^akes  up  a  recent  continental  work  on  metal- 
•*  ;L|rgy..*  •;  He.  finds  it  to  be  almost  a  dictionary  of  names  of  Bel- 
.*  *  tgl^^LHaLhAders,  Germans,  Englishmen,  Erenchmlen,  and 
Russians.  Two  Americans  appear  in  such  a  host,  Professor 
Gibbs  and  Professor  Howe,  and  yet,  the  critic  remarks,  America 
is  the  land  of  the  steel  industry  and  the  home  of  the  great  trust. 

Considering  research  on  the  phenomena  of  ultra-matter  and 
the  aether,  the  writer  finds  no  American  worthy  of  note  among 
the  disciples  of  Crooks,  Roentgen,  and  J.  J.  Thompson. 

Mr.  Snyder  next,  directs  our  attention  to  the  work  of  the 
past  quarter  century  which  has  been  expended  in  the  attempt 
to  unravel  the  mystery  of  the  mechanism  of  the  human  brain. 
A  whole  library  could  be  filled  with  the  monographs,  memoirs 
and  treatises  on  this  subject  from  Spain,  Italy,  Germany,  Bel¬ 
gium,  Switzerland  and  Austria,  but  in  all  of  the  many  shelves 
and  stacks  of  this  brain  library  there  is  not  even  a  pamphlet 
or  reprint  from  America. 

The  critic,  having  gained  enthusiasm  with  the  sweeping  char¬ 
acter  of  this  last  conclusion,  now  takes  up  a  much  larger  sub¬ 
ject,  that  of  chemistry.  Obscure  lands,  he  says,  like  Sweden, 
Norway,  Russia  have  often  been  to  the  fore,  yet  the  history 
of  this  wonderful  science  could  be  written  in  full  detail  with¬ 
out  mention  of  perhaps  more  than  a  single  American  name, 
which  according  to  our  critic  would  be  that  of  Professor  Willard 
Gibbs.  In  physical  chemistry,  or  “electro  chemistry”  as  our 
ciitic  calls  it,  the  case  is  not  much  better.  Not  only  has  Amer¬ 
ica  no  name  to  place  with  Van’t  Hoff,  Arrhenius,  Ostwald, 
and  Raoult,  but  a  list  which  should  include  the  names  of  even 


I 


* 


Becent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship.  3 

the  lesser  builders  of  this  imposing  fabric,  would  hardly  con¬ 
tain  a  single  American. 

The  critic  says  that  it  is  easy  to  multiply  examples,  but  cares 
to  note  but  a  single  additional  case;  namely,  the  theory  of  the 
aether.  Wise  mien  from  many  lands  ha,ve  come  offering  gifts 
at  this  isshe  of  a  happy  union  of  experiment  and  imagination, 
but  in  the  long  line  from  Kelvin  and  Helmholtz  to  Lorenz  and 
Poincare,  you  discover  no  faces  out  of  the  “desert  of  the  west- 
ern  continent.”  The  “desert  of  the  western  continent”  is  Mr. 
Snyder’s  name  for  that  part  of  the  map  of  the  scientific  world 
occupied  by  the  United  States. 

The  above  are  the  principal  claimls  set  forth  in  the  article. 
The  impression  made  by  the  criticisms,  as  a  whole,  is  distinctly 
that  of  unfairness.  In  some  cases,  as,  for  example,  that  of 
chemistry,  the  references  are  decidedly  unjust  to  the  rapidly 
expanding  work  and  reputation  of  American  scientists.  It  is 
not  our  purpose,  however,  to  set  up  in  rebuttal  an  opposite 
claim  as  to  America’s  position  in  the  scientific  world.  It  is 
more  profitable  to  consider  the  possible  causes  which  have  made 
the  situation  what  it  is ;  to  note  the  character  of  present  tenden¬ 
cies,  and  to  see  what  hope  can  be  found  for  the  near  future. 

First,  let  us  consider  the  situation  in  a  field  of  activity  very 
close  to  that  of  pure  science.  It  is  certain  that  no  one  need 
apologize  for  America  in  the  field  of  invention  and  technical 
science.  The  steamboat,  the  telegraph,  the  telephone,  are 
enough  of  the  fundamental  inventions  for  any  nation  to  contrib¬ 
ute  in  a  single  century.  Even  if  one  find  credit  for  others  than 
Morse  and  Bell  in  the  last  named  inventions,  one  must  remem¬ 
ber  that  after  all,  the  honors  in  technical  science  and  inven¬ 
tion  belong  not  so  much  to  the  one  who  makes  a  discovery, 
as  is  the  case  in  pure  science,  as  to  the  one  who  makes  a  dis- 
coverv  and  renders  it  a  commercial  success.  On  this  basis 

C/ 

America  can  take  a  large  share  of  honor  in  many  lines  of  en¬ 
deavor.  The  vastness  and  novelty  of  the  problems  in  a  new 
country  have  contributed  to  our  success.  The  great,  rivers  to 
be  spanned  by  bridges,  the  great,  mountain  ranges  to  be  crossed 
by  highways,  the  great  canals  to  be  built  with  high  priced  labor 
have  all  resulted  in  great  engineering  advance  and  have  placed 
the  rest  of  the  world  in  the  position  of  pupil  to  America.  But 


1 


4  Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 

America  has  not  only  advanced  engineering  science  in  bridge 
design,  in  railway  construction  and  in  canal  digging,  but  lias 
extended  engineering  science  to  entirely  new  fields.  A  famil¬ 
iar  example  is  the  complex  development  of  the  municipal  rapid 
transit  systems  of  the  American  cities.  Another  example  is 
the  American  steel  frame  sky-scraper,  with  the  difficult  asso¬ 
ciated  problems  of  heating  and  sanitation.  A  less  well  known 
example,  but,  nevertheless,  one  in  which  the  economic  results 
have  been  of  international  importance,  is  the  application  of 
engineering  science  to  the  design  of  machine  tools — such  as 
the  lathes,  boring-machines,  shapers,  planers,  etc.,  used  in  ma¬ 
chine  shops  to  give  form  to  the  metal  parts  of  a  machine.  Such 
tools  have  not  only  been  made  highly  versatile  and  highly  auto¬ 
matic,  but  the  theory  of  their  design  has  been  enormously  elab¬ 
orated.  The  introduction  of  improved  tool  steel  and  scien¬ 
tifically  designed  cutting  tools,  permitting  deeper  cuts  and 
higher  speed,  has  increased  immensely  the  earning  power  of 
all  machine  tools.  Likewise  the  introduction  of  standard  de¬ 
signs  and  dimensions  in  cutting  tools  and  other  parts  and  the 
use  of  graduated  indices  have  converted  the  machine  tool  into 
an  instrument  of  precision — a  quantitative  and.  not  merely  a 
qualitative  instrument.  The  further  development  of  the  de¬ 
sign  so  as  to  produce  the  maximum  product  in  the  minimum 
time  has  made  the  cost  of  unit  output  nearly  independent  of 
the  operative  and  the  rate  of  his  daily  wage.  These  achieve¬ 
ments  are  of  the  kind  that  has  enabled  this  country  to  enter 
successfully  into  international  competition,  notwithstanding  the 
much  higher  cost  of  labor. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  examples  of  American  contri¬ 
bution  to  technical  science,  or  to  enumerate  further  additions 
which  American  necessity  has  added  to  the  recognized  domain 
of  engineering  practice.  I  use  these  facts  to  indicate  that 
American  leadership  in  pure  science  is  not  hopeless,  if  in  the 
future  there  can  be  provided  for  the  scientist  an  environment 
as  favorable  as  the  past  has  allotted  to  the  inventor  and  tire 
engineer.  One  must  be  blind  if  he  can  not  see  such  indications 
in  the  present  situation.  It  is  obvious  that  it  is  not  the  first 
concern  of  the  pioneer  to  cultivate  science  and  scholarship. 
Speculation  about  the  unknown  must  give  way  for  a  time  to 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 


attention  to  the  more  immediate  necessities.  The  savage  must 
he  driven  bach,  the  soil  must  be  reclaimed,  shelter  must  be  pro¬ 
vided.  1ST  ext,  roads,  canals,  and  means  of  communication  must 
be  established,  cities  built,  churches  and  schools  erected.  Then 
business,  commerce,  and  manufacturing  must  be  fostered  be¬ 
fore  profits  and  surplus  can  accumulate  wherewith  to  provide 
for  leisure  and  to  sustain  the  arts  and  sciences.  I  take  it  that 
it  is  the  coming  of  age  of  commercialism  in  this  country  that 
has  brought  technical  science  to  its  present  commanding  place; 
unless  things  go  quite  wrong,  the  natural  evolution  of  events 
should  next  culminate  in  a  like  development  of  pure  science. 

The  coming  change  is  foreshadowed  in  the  modified  character 
of  technical  science.  In  former  days  engineering  technology 
was  founded  chiefly  upon  current  practice  rather  than  upon 
established  principles;  it  was  more  closely  allied  to  the  crafts 
than  to  science.  Xot  only  is  that  day  past,  but  it  is  no  longer 
the  case  that  technical  science  looks  entirely  to  pure  science 
for  its  fundamental  material.  It  has  so  grown  that  it  is  in¬ 
vestigating  for  itself  and,  in  greater  and  greater  measure, 
developing  basal  principles  for  its  many  needs.  There  are 
very  few  American,  treatises  in  pure  science  which  will  com¬ 
pare  in  scientific  thoroughness  with  several  treatises  which  have 
lately  issued  from  the  engineering  press.  This  is  a  very  hope¬ 
ful  sign  in  the  growth  of  knowledge — to  see  applied  science  and 
pure  science  approaching  each  other  at  numerous  points,  so 
that  it  is  increasingly  difficult  to  distinguish  any  line  of  de¬ 
marcation  between  them.  In  this  change,  science  is  not  sacri¬ 
ficing  any  of  its  strength  nor  compromising  its  ideals.  It  is 
technology  that  is  changing — that  is  becoming  less  empirical, 
less  conservative,  more  systematic,  more  quantitative,  more 
exact,  more  scientific. 

The  technical  schools  are  planning  their  own  departments  for 
research  and  higher  work.  The  Massachusetts  Institute  of 
Technology  has  organized  such  a  department  during  the  cur¬ 
rent  year,  -while  one  of  the  plans  dearest  to  the  heart  of  the 
late  Dean  Johnson  vTas  an  endowment  fund  for  technical  re¬ 
search  at  Wisconsin. 

There  are  two  results  which  naturally  follow  from  the  situa¬ 
tion  as  I  have  described  it.  First,  applied  science,  by  its  ex- 


6  Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 

pansion  into  new  fields,  by  its  rapid  approximation  to  a  sounder 
scientific  basis,  as  well  as  by  its  great  vitality  and  energy, 
offers  a  miost  favorable  opportunity  for  tbe  rapid  development 
of  pure  science,  if  other  conditions  are  favorable.  Secondly, 
unless  the  forces  which  are  at  present  working  against  the  high¬ 
est  development  of  pure  science  in  America  are  discovered  and 
removed,  the  greater  share  of  productive  energy  will  flow  in 
technical  channels,  to  the  detriment  of  the  best  interests  of  both 
pure  and  applied  science. 

Let  us  now  consider  some  of  the  facts  in  the  present  situation 
which  are  unfavorable  to  the  highest  and  best  work  in  science. 
The  most  fundamental  defect,  I  believe,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
peculiarities  of  our  American  educational  system.  The  great 
majority  of  scholars  must  always  rely  for  their  support  upon 
the  colleges  and  universities.  The  advancement  of  knowledge 
is  as  much  a  function  of  a.  university  as  is  the  propagation 
of  learning.  In  fact,  so  many  departments  of  scholarship  in 
this  country  have  no  home  outside  our  educational  institutions, 
that  it  is  highly  important  for  the  growth  of  knowledge  that 
conditions  should  be  as  favorable  as  possible  in  these  higher 
institutions.  We  find  that  the  colleges  instead  of  providing  a 
distinctly  favorable  environment,  adhere  to  substantially  tin-; 
same  methods  of  education  that  are  suited  to  elementary  schools. 
The  American  college  and  university  system  is  largely  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  text  book  and  recitation.  Tasks  are  assigned  in  small 
allotments  and  quizzes  held,  substantially  as  in  the  lower 
schools.  Even  the  lectures  of  Junior  and  Senior  grade  lack 
the  vitalizing  principle  appropriate  to  university  or  college 
work.  We  may  explain  away  this  fact  as  much  as  we  please, 
we  may  draw  as  bright  contrasts  between  the  higher  college 
work  and  the  work  of  the  elementary  schools  as  we  can,  yet 
it  is  a  fact-  that  from  the  time  the  grade  pupil  begins  his  work 
in  spelling,  arithmetic  and  geography  until  as  university  stu¬ 
dent  he  does  his  language,  history,  and  science,  he  is  kept  con¬ 
stantly  at  a  grind  of  chores,  doing  tasks  for  a  taskmaster.  The 
taskmaster  must  consume  much  of  his  time  in  holding  the 
student  to  account,  in  seeing  that  things  are  done  at  a  specified 
time  and  in  specified  amounts.  It  results  that,  the  work  is  ema¬ 
ciated  and  lifeless,  both  for  instructor  and  student.  The  lee- 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship.  7 

turer  gives  in  two  or  three  lectures  what  should  he  given  in 
one,  and  the  student  has  twelve  to  eighteen  of  these  periods 
per  week  instead  of  half  as  many — numerous  lunches  instead 
of  half  as  miany  substantial  meals.  Such  a  system  I  believe 
,  to  he  disastrous  to  the  best  scholarship,  hto  one  working  under 

such  a  plan  can  give  or  receive  the  highest  inspiration.  There 
is  too  much  detail  in  instruction  and  too  much  detail  in  ad- 
'  ministration.  The  system  has  not  produced  scholars,  and  we 

may  doubt  if  it  has  adequately  succeeded  as  an  educational 
scheme.  Instruction  of  the  higher  undergraduates,  as  well  as 
of  the  graduate  students,  must  depend,  I  am  convinced,  upon 
inspiration  rather  than  upon  watchfulness.  It  must  hope  to 
reflect  culture  upon  the  students  from  the  fire  of  higher  in¬ 
vestigative  scholarship,  rather  than  expect  to  force  it  upon  them 
by  the  pressure  of  an  educational  system. 

It  is  idle  to  expect  any  surrender  of  educational  purpose  in 
our  colleges  and  universities.  They  must  exist  for  the  educa¬ 
tion  of  youth  quite  as  much  in  the  future  as  in  the  past.  The 
change  will  come  when  it  becomes  apparent  that  this  very  work 
can  be  better  done  by  a,  different  and  no  more  expensive  sys¬ 
tem.  Associated  with  such  change  will  come  a.  broadening  of 
American  scholarship.  Instructional  positions  in  American 
colleges  and  universities  will  become  more  attractive  to  ambi¬ 
tious  scholars,  and  our  position  in  science  materially  advanced. 

American  scholarship  seems  to  bo  content  with  the  filling 
in  of  details  within  boundaries  outlined  by  continental  mas¬ 
ters.  Men  from  other  countries  have  mapped  out  the  new 
regions  and  noted  the  chief  features;  American  work  has  con¬ 
sisted  in  supplying  particulars.  This  is  a  corollary  to  what 
we  have  said  about  our  peculiar  educational  system.  The  sci¬ 
entific  work  of  young  men,  of  graduate  students,  is  amply  en¬ 
couraged  by  scholarships  and  fellowships  and  the  like.  Their 
theses,  written  in  this  country  or  abroad,  are  too'  often  the 
j  best,  pieces  of  work  that  they  ever  do,  for  our  encouragement 

stops  when  one  of  them  begins  instructional  work.  At  the  time 
of  life  when  the  scientist  should  be  producing  his  best  work, 
y  say  from  30  to  50  years  of  age,  he  is  held  down  to  mere  in- 

structional  routine  by  the  American  quality  of  his  college  or 
university  professorship.  To  take  the  lead  in  science  our  schol- 


8 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 


arship  must  become  catholic ;  we  must  contribute  to  knowl¬ 
edge  a  due  share  of  the  great  generalizations,  of  the  funda¬ 
mental  principles.  This  requires  that  all  professors  in  all  in¬ 
stitutions  should  be  engaged  in  productive  work,  so  that  in  the 
multitude  the  genius  may  be  discovered  and  advanced  to  greater 
opportunity. 

Let  us  attempt  to  nanfe,  as  others  have',  the  great  scientific 
truths  which  the  19th  centurv  added  to  the  sum  of  knowledge.  "* 
The  list  is  about  as  follows : — 

1.  The  principle  of  evolution. 

2.  The  atomic  structure  of  matter. 

3.  The  existence  of  the  aether  and  the  undulatory  theory  of 

light  and  electricity. 

4.  The  principles  of  electro-magnetic  induction. 

5.  The  principles  of  electrolytic  action. 

6.  The  discovery  of  micro-organisms  and  the  germ  theory 

of  contagious  disease. 

7.  The  principle  of  conservation  of  energy. 

The  question  for  us  to  raise  is:— -How  much  would  the  dis¬ 
covery  of  these  truths  have  been  retarded  if  America  had  not 
existed  ?  What  would  be  the  loss  to  science  and  humianity  if 
the  American  contributions  to  these  great  principles  could  be 
removed  from  the  libraries  of  the  world  ?  The  answer  must  be 
that  America  has  not  materially  affected  the  general  result. 
Such  is  likely  to  be  the  case  in  the  future  if  the  position  of 
the  scholar  in  the  educational  system  is  to  remain  as  it  is  at 
present. 

A  early  every  college  and  university  instructor  in  the  land 
needs  wider  opportunity  for  productive  scholarship  than  our 
system  permits.  It  is  in  the  multitude  of  scientific  workers 
that  there  is  hope.  The  man  of  genius  is  a  rare  bird,  and 
we  must  have  a  numerous  class  from  which  to  produce  him. 
A  few  institutions,  with  high  ideals  cannot  raise  America  from 
her  present  position,  if  the  instructors  in  other  institutions  must 
remain  mere  teachers,  and  view  from  afar  the  scientific  work 
of  others.  Matthew  Arnold  once  said  that  the  smallest  Ger¬ 
man  university  contributed  more  to  human  knowledge  than  Ox- 
ford  and  Cambridge  with  all  of  their  wealth.  College  Trustees 


*1  have  added  5  and  G  to  the  list  of  Sir  WUliam  Preece. 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 


9 


and  presidents  in  this  country  could  well  afford  to  ponder  over 
the  significance  of  this  criticism. 

A  very  good  indication  that  America’s  inferior  position  in 

m 

science  is  due  in  large  part  to  her  higher  educational  system 
is  seen  when  we  consider  those  branches  of  pure  science  in 
which  America  stands  highest.  I  suppose  that  all  will  agree 
that  the  United  States  is  in  the  very  front  rank  in  astronomy, 
geology,  and  meteorology.  But  there  are  the  very  branches 
which  are  freest  from  the  influence  of  the  American  teaching 
system.  Astronomy  has  thrived  in  the  National  Observatory, 
in  the  great  university  observatories,  and  in  a  few  private  or 
independent  observatories,  like  the  Lick.  In  all  of  these  cases, 
instructional  requirements  are  either  absent  altogether  or  are 
at  a  minimtum.  Likewise  geology  has  been  fostered  by  the 
great  government  bureau,  and  the  best  geologists  in  the  uni¬ 
versities  have  had  opportunity  to  work  under  its  auspices,  with 
consequent  curtailment  of  university  instruction.  Three  past 
presidents  of  the  Wisconsin  Academy,  Chamberlin,  Irving,  and 
Van  ITise,  have  won  international  fame  in  this  line  of  work. 
This  was  not  due  to  a  helpful  situation  at  Beloit  or  Madison, 
but  to  the  opportunity  which  the  national  survey  afforded  them. 
In  meteorology  the  sole  patron  has  been  the  general  govern¬ 
ment,  and  the  service  has  honored  American  science  with  a 
long  list  of  names  of  international  currency, — Espy,  Bedfield, 
Loomis,  Eerrel,  Abbe.  Likewise,  a  few  purely  investigative 
institutions,  like  Wood’s  Holl,  The  Museum  of  Comparative 
Zoology,  The  Washington  Botanical  Gardens,  etc.,  all  bring  to 
bear  their  share  of  proof  that  it  is  not  lack  of  brains  or  scien¬ 
tific  capacity  that  has  kept  higher  scholarship  out  of  our  col¬ 
leges  and  universities. 

Among  the  many  discussions  of  the  present  subject  which 
nil  the  reviews  of  the  current  year,  there  is  one  in  a  French 
periodical,  La  Bevue,  written  by  Jean  Jussieu.  This  writer 
will  not  admit  that  America  is  too  young  to  have  attained  dis¬ 
tinction  in  science  and  art.  He  has  no  doubt  that  the  cause 
of  America’s  scientific  inferiority  is  the  too  great  triumph  of 
democracy.  He  says:  “The  idea  of  the  moral  equality  of 
citizens  brings  about  in  most  minds  the  idea  of  intellectual 
equality,  which  is  of  course  a  profound  error.  The  result  is 


10 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 


tli©  “bourgeoisisme”  not  only  of  a  class,  as  in  France,  but  of 
the  whole  nation.  Democracy  assures  the  triumph  of  utilita¬ 
rianism.  The  formula  of  both  is  the  greatest  good  for  the 
greatest  number.  Now  the  value  of  a  principle  depends  upon 
the  person  who  adopts  it.  In  the  mouth  of  the  majority  this 
principle  has  come  to  mean: — ‘So  long  as  I  do  not  interfere 
with  another,  there  is  no  reason  why  I  should  honor  him  rather 
than  myself.’  It  is  easy  to  see  what  this  means  in  the  mouth 
of  one  of  average  intelligence ;  it  is  the  end  of  all  spirit  of  dis¬ 
interestedness,  not  only  in  science,  but  in  art  and  in  moral¬ 
ity.  Men  who  will  not  sacrifice  themselves  for  another  man 
will  hardly  do  so  for  an  idea,  a  precept.  Worldly  success,  the 
monev  making  ideal,  has  fettered  and  will  continue  to  fetter 

American  science . In  the  United  States,  it 

may  be  said,  the  school  governs  science,  the  masters  govern  the 
school,  the  parents  govern  the  masters,  the  children  govern  the 
parents, — therefore  the  children  govern  science.” 

“Again  there  is  too  much  attention  paid  to  athletics.  A  di¬ 
rector  of  football  at  an  American  university  gets  $6,000.00  a 
year;  a  coach,  $1,500.00  for  ten  or  twelve  weeks’  service,  with 
board  and  lodging.  Sports  occupy  a  proportional  amount  of 
space  in  American  newspapers.” 

“The  true  scientific  spirit,  according  to  Herbert  Spencer,  is 
the  synthetic  spirit,  which  sees  likenesses  where  the  common 
mind  only  sees  divergencies,”  It  is  this  which  M.  Jussieu 
considers  is  almost  lacking  in  America,  Here  scientific  writ¬ 
ings  are  almost  always  merely  analytical — statistics,  compila¬ 
tions,  observations,  etc.,  requiring  altogether  a  lower  order  of 
intelligence. 

The  criticisms  of  M.  Jussieu  cannot  be  ignored  or  lightly 
dismissed.  It  is  hard,  or  impossible,  for  an  American  to  admit 
that  science  and  democracy  cannot  both  triumph  on  American 
soil.  We  are  too  prejudiced  to  accept  such  a  proposition  even 
it  proved.  Nevertheless,  may  we  not  agree  that,  after  all,  some 
of  our  ideals  have  been  fallacious  ?  Have  we  not  gone  too  much 
on  the  principle  that  every  one  must  receive  a  higher  educa¬ 
tion,  whether  lie  will  or  not  ?  If  in  preparation  for  such  an 
education  it  is  too  difficult  or  too  inconvenient  to  master  Greek 
and  Latin,  have  we  not  accepted  too  eagerly  such  things  as 


I 


liecent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship.  11 

civics  and  literary  readings  as  equivalents  ?  Is  it  not  true  that 
American  colleges  and  universities  have  cared  too  much  for 
numbers  and  for  athletic  success  %  It  is  not  too  much  democ¬ 
racy  that  makes  it  relatively  easy  for  colleges  to  get  buildings 
1  and  so  hard  to  get  income,  both  from!  individuals  and  from  the 

state  \  Is  it  not  true  that  too  much  is  made  of  newspaper  pub¬ 
licity  and  too  little  of  scholarly  reputation  ? 
r  Answers  to  these  questions  show  that  Jussieu’s  criticisms  are 

not  without  some  force.  Yet  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  no  in¬ 
dication  that  democracy  is  necessarily  plebeian.  The  expe¬ 
rience  of  Greece  and  even  of  our  own  country  seems  to  show 
that  democracy  admits  of  sufficient  refinement  and  that  the 
evils  that  the  critic  notes  are  not  to  be  considered  as  essential 
bnt  merely  incidental  to  certain  phases  of  development.  There 
are  also  a  number  of  facts  of  a  contrary  character  to  those 
sought  out  by  Jussieu.  It  is  encouraging  to  know  that  the 
people  of  Wisconsin  have  erected  as  their  noblest  public  build¬ 
ing  the  Historical  Library,  a  home  for  advanced  scholarship 
and  research.  It  also  is  significant  that  as  a  class  the  state 
universities,  founded  and  endowed  directly  by  the  people,  have 
advanced  more  in  investigative  scholarship  during  the  past 
decade  than  in  any  other  line  of  their  growth. 

There  are  some  things  inherent  in  democracy  which  should 
naturally  tend  to  foster  the  higher  interests  of  science.  There 
are  supposed  to  he,  in  republican  institutions,  no  artificial  re¬ 
straints  to  hold  down  and  keep  obscure  the  exceptional  man, 
the  man  of  genius,  no  matter  how  obscure  his  origin.  As 
Professor  Simon  1ST ewcomb  has  well  said:  “The  whole  history 
of  modern  progress,  whether  in  science  or  industry,  is  a  his¬ 
tory  of  the  efforts  of  exceptional  mien.”  ....  “The 
leader  in  science,  the  divinely  inspired  explorer  of  nature — 
whom  no  university  has  made  what  he  is,  who  has  learned 
for  himself  how  knowledge  can  be  advanced,  whose  main  out- 

*  fit  is  the  original  genius  with  which  nature  has  endowed  him, 
whose  paramount  motive  is  a  native  impulse,”  should  have  the 
fairest  show  in  a  democracy.  But  Professor  AT  ewcomb  com- 

*  plains  that  in  our  failure  to  estimate  and  honor  the  individ¬ 
ual  scientific  investigator  we  stand  far  behind  all  other  enlight¬ 
ened  nations.  Such  honor  as  England  showed  to  Lord  Kel- 


12 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 


vin  and  Sir  George  Gabriel  Stokes  in  the  impressive  jubilees 

held  in  recent  years,  the  noble  tribute  paid  by  all  Germany 

to  the  venerable  Helmholtz  upon  liis  seventieth  birthday  and 

the  recent  tribute  of  France  to  Berthelot,  seem  quite  impossi- 

ble  in  America.  Such  honor,  suggests  Professor  [Newcomb,  1 

is  not  needed  so  that  each  investigator  may  say  “See  what  may  ■* 

be  done  for  me  if  I  am  successful”  but  so  that  all  may  say 

“See  what  a  high  value  my  countrymen  set  upon  the  best  kind 

of  intellectual  work.” 

The  most  favorable  classification  of  the  rank  of  modern  na¬ 
tions  in  productive  scholarship  that  I  have  seen  places  America 
in  the  fourth  place.  This  classification  attempts  to  divide  the 
countries  into  groups  of  approximately  equal  population,  and 
is  as  follows: 

1.  Germany  and  Austria. 

2.  Great  Britain  and  Colonies. 

3.  France  and  Belgium. 

4.  The  United  States. 

5.  Italy. 

6.  Scandinavia,  Holland,  and  a  miscellaneous  group  of  states. 

7.  Spain  and  Spanish  Colonies. 

One  cannot  be  satisfied  with  the  position  of  America  in  this 
scheme,  but  it  seems  impossible  to  challenge  its  truth.  Yet 
it  is  true  that  the  difference  between  class  2,  Great  Britain 
and  Colonies,  and  class  3,  France  and  Belgium,  is  exceedingly 
slight:  many  would  probably  prefer  to  put  France  and  Bel¬ 
gium  in  second  place,  so  that  America  occupies  a  sort  of  third 
place,  the  second  position  being  nearly  evenly  divided.  But 
after  all,  it  is  not  so  much  our  actual  grade  that,  need  concern 
us,  as  the  character  of  present  tendencies  and  our  rate  of  de¬ 
velopment.  And  in  this  aspect  there  is  much  encouragement. 

The  American  scholar  is  now  wide  awake,  both  to  his  actual 
position  in  the  world  and  to  the  vast  opportunities  before  him.  » 

His  ambition  is  kindled  and  he  is  beginning  to  insist  upon  op¬ 
portunity  for  work  and  for  proper  recognition  for  what  is  at¬ 
tained. 

It  is  the  hope  of  every  American  that  the  new  Carnegie 
Institution  will  have  a  marked  influence  upon  the  advance  of 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship.  13 

science  in  this  country-  This  munificent  foundation  was  of- 
fered  to  America  at  a  most  opportune  time.  The  whole  range 
of  American  scholarship  had  just  entered  upon  a  season  of 
promising  growth.  i\o  stimulus  of  greater  power  to  vitalize 
science  can  be  imagined  than  the  fortunate  creation  of  this  new 


corporation  for  the  fostering  of  research.  It  is  amazing  t:> 
•L-  ° 

note,  however,  the  lack  of  perspective,  the  inadequggjf of  ideals’ 
among  American  scientists  which  have  been  disclosed  by  the 

o  o  ,  j  y  o » o  j 

founding  of  this  institution.  The  numerous  discussions^  pon-> 


corning  the  proper  use  of  the  Carnegie  gift  which.  hav„e  fakeu 

.  ^  #  ■>»*•*  *>  .■>*,  ■> 

up  so  much  space  in  the  weekly  issues  of  e ‘ S cifinfie  y *» during ’ 
the  past  autumn  make  one  ashamed  of  the  poverty  of  ambi¬ 
tion  and  smallness  of  scientific  scope  which  many  of  the 
scientific  men  of  this  country  have  displayed.  If  the  advisory 
committees  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  do  not  act  on  higher 
ideals  than  those  presented  by  a  majority  of  the  suggestions 
printed  in  Science,  then  all  the  new  establishment  can  hope  to 
accomplish  is  to  add  to  American  science  more  of  the  same 
material  that  is  being  abundantly  accumulated  at  the  present 
time. 

The  Carnegie  Institution  should  take  its  chief  warning  from 
the  unfortunate  history  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution,  which 
at  one  time  promised  so  much  for  American  science.  This 
institution  instead  of  becoming  the  one  place  in  the  United 
States  where  the  highest  science  could  always  find  a  home,  has 
become  very  largely  a  routine  institution.  It  spends  its  money 
for  salaries  ami  administration  in  true  American  fashion  and 
has  a  minimum  to  show  for  its  more  than  fifty  years  of  ex¬ 
istence.  At  the  present  time  about  four-fifths  of  its  income 
goes  for  salaries  and  expense  of  administration.  The  Ameri¬ 
can  is  a  great  man  for  stipends,  and  stenographers,  and  card 
catalogs.  Fortunate  would  it  have  been  if  a  Helmholtz  had 
had  charge  of  this  institution.  Tie  would  have  been  so  ab¬ 
sorbed  in  his  science  that  he  would  have  forgotten  about  his 
clerks  and  type-writers,  but  his  suggestions  and  plans,  given 
to  his  scientific  workers,  would  have  made  at  Washington  an 
institution  conspicuous  “for  the  increase  and  diffusion  of  knowl¬ 
edge  among  men.”  It  is  one  of  the  good  signs  of  the  times 
that  scientific  journals  have  come  to  recognize  the  deficiences 


14 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholarship. 


in  the  work  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  and  are  loudly  call- 
ing  for  a  change  of  policy. 

A  question  of  much  interest  to  us  is:  What  part  shall  Wis¬ 
consin  take  in  the  new  revival  of  learning  which  seems  to  he 
upon  us  ?  It  has  often  seemed  to  me  that  Wisconsin  was  des¬ 


tined  to  become  a  sort  of  Scotland  to  the  other  states  of  the  Mis- 

c.  c  ;  «■  t 

/sjssippf  alley,  to  be  the  home  of  a  sturdy  people,  with  high  in- 
•  tellectual  and  moral  ideals,  even  if  it  could  not  excel  neighbor- 
c  ingt'tates  In  lAihm&rce  and  wealth.  Wisconsin  is  a  state  of  roll¬ 
ing  hills*  aitd  partly  drained  valleys,  marked  out  by  nature  for 
t  dairying2  and" diversified  farming  rather  than  for  grain  and  corn 
raising  as  it  is  found  on  the  flat  prairies  of  Illinois  and  Iowa. 
Wisconsin  has  no  great  beds  of  coal  beneath  her  soil,  and  her 
manufacturing,  instead  of  being  of  the  cruder  and  grosser  soil, 
must  in  large  part  develop  the  more  highly  finished  products 
suitable  to  a  more  expensive  cost  of  fuel.  But  these  very  facts 
have  a  compensating  advantage.  There  will  be  little  attraction  in 
Wisconsin  for  the  lower  grade  of  immigrants  which  are  brought 


in  by  the  coal  mines  and  the  less  finished  manufactures.  In¬ 
stead  of  much  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  there  is  hope  that 
Wisconsin  may  enjoy  a  more  equal  division  of  the  good  things  of 
life,  more  contentment,  and  immeasurably  greater  refinement 
and  learning  than  will  be  the  lot  of  her  more  populous 
neighbors.  Wisconsin  will  be  satisfied  if  she  can  share  in  a 
large  way  in  the  intellectual  life  of  the  nation  and  furnish  her 
country  with  scholars  and  statesmen.  It  must  be  the  ambition 
of  every  scholar  in  the  state  to  do  his  part  in  building  up  the  in¬ 
tellectual  reputation  of  Wisconsin,  and,  more  than  all,  for  each 
one  to  do  all  he  can  to  bring  about  an  elevation  of  ideals  in  all 
institutions  of  learning  within  our  borders,  so  that  her  scientific 
men  may  enjoy  wider  opportunities  for  productive  wTork.  Our 
ambition  must  extend  beyond  our  individual  work,  and  must 
especially  include  the  advancement  of  the  best  interests  of  the 
state  Academy  of  Sciences,  Arts  and  Letters.  It  should  be  the 
inspiration  of  every  scholar  in  the  state  to  have  within  our 
borders  a  better  Academy  than  is  found  in  any  neighboring  state. 
Our  printed  Transactions  appear  upon  the  shelves  of  practically 
every  library  in  the  learned  world.  Ho  publication  within  our 
state  has  so  wide  a  circulation,  the  original  of  a  citation  from 


1 


Recent  Criticism  of  American  Scholar  ship.  15 

an  Academy  paper  being  instantly  accessible  in  almost  any  seat 
of  learning  in  the  world.  It  should  be  our  pride,  therefore, 
that  this  society,  which  is  the  intellectual  ambassador  of  the 
.state  of  Wisconsin  to  the  learned  world,  should  be  maintained  in 
the  highest  possible  position;  that  its  dignity  should  be  com¬ 
mensurate  with  the  honor  of  science  as  well  as  with  the  honor  of 
a  great  commonwealth.  With  such  a  purpose  in  his  mind,  let 
every  member  of  this  Academy  renew  his  allegiance  and  his  ac¬ 
tivity.  Let  all  the  productive  intellectual  forces  of  the  state  be 
united  in  this  society  as  an  instrument  for  the  advancement  of 
investigation  and  the  spread  of  knowledge. 


3  0112  099414457 


